DSD專題

I
would like to point out that OII is not of the opinion that this is a
controversy simply about terminology. OII’s members have discussed
this in great detail and have taken the time to read the documents and
familiarize ourselves with the different experts and activists
involved. OII has objections to the DSD Guidelines and the underlying
abuse of power used in imposing this term on us without consultation.
If others around the world had been consulted and treated with respect
and human dignity, there would not be such a controversy.

Please
note that the following comments do not necessarily reflect my personal
opinions. They reflect various opinions from many different board
members and intersexed persons who are members of our support groups.
We do not all have the same opinions on this subject.

What follows is a list of objections to DSD terminology and the DSD Guidelines:

Some
members are concerned that DSD is not so much a new medical term for
intersex variations but a new “genetic defect” which would put many
different medical conditions that have different etiologies all in the
same “genetic” birth defect category. For more information read: What is in a word

B. American imperialism and the abuse of power to define others

Many
people in French-speaking countries feel that the DSD Consortium is
typical of United States imperialism and its abuse of power to define
others and place them in categories while they have no right to
self-representation and definition. One disturbing event that
galvanized French activists was the large article devoted to intersex
in a magazine with high circulation in France just about the time that
the DSD Consortium’s announcement was to be official. This article in
French media was exclusively about US activists with only one little
footnote about all the great work that French intersex activists are
doing in their own country but they have not had access to the French
media. They have expressed great resentment that they were not
consulted about this change because their input would have helped
alleviate some serious problems when this term is translated in to
French. We in OII have yet to find a French-speaking intersexed person
who is not disturbed about this terminology and the guidelines. Their
health systems are very different and the terminology used is very
offensive because in French the translation is very ambiguous and leads
the layman to think that you are talking about sexual orientation,
pedophilia, fetichism, masturbation, etc. (See footnote for examples)

In English, one can make a distinction between: “Sex development” and “Sexual development”. This is not the case in French.

As
a result, in French the translation is ambiguous and it gives the idea
that what one is talking about is every aspect of one’s sexual
development from childhood to maturity, including sexual orientation
and gender identity. A Disorder of sexual development could be
interpreted to mean almost any perversion, fetish or gender atypical
behavior, not something most French adults would probably like to tell
a child.

C. Increased pathologisation of the intersexed child throughout their childhood and adolescence

When
the DSD inducing treatment fails, rather than approaching this as
evidence of the shortcomings of the disordering approach, individuals
become further pathologised into other categories of disorder (such as
GID or some alternative *psychosexual disorder*). This then means that
"experts" can avoid difficult questions about what has gone on in the
past. Those who do not correspond to the intended outcome of the
disordering treatment can then be de-categorised in a way that they do
not feature as evidence that the DSD approach has failed to work.
Source: Click here

D. Exclusion of intersexed people

The
decisions were arrived at by people speaking about us but who have not
listened to us. As adults who have experienced what it was like to be
an intersexed child, it is tragic that we were not included in the
discussions. Why such secrecy? Why such exclusion? Why do people
with no experience of either being intersexed or having been treated in
childhood conduct these consortiums and arrive at a consensus with no
input from the larger community of actual intersexed people? Click here to read more

E.
Pathologizing only the gender atypicality of intersex bodies with
little emphasis on the underlying specifics of the particular intersex
variation

Viewing
these variations as a medical illness creates a special medical
category which includes an extremely large group of “disorders” which
have nothing in common from a medical point of view except that the
person is of intermediate sex as established by current norms.
Intersex people need health care just as everyone else does but each
intersex variation has its specific health needs which will be
overlooked when placed in a catch-all umbrella term such as DSD
(Disorders of Sex Development) and will make “gender” normalisation
the main issue because that is the only factor that all these
“disorders” have in common. This is why the term “intersex” is
preferable since it includes all the different variations without
implying that they have any medical condition in common which they do
not. What we have in common is that we are of “intermediate” sex as
defined by current norms for male or female. If the medical community
sees a need to pathologise each and every variation, it could come up
with a specific diagnosis for each one, such as is already common for
many intersex variations. This would at least make the medical
community aware of each variations unique etiology and specific health
needs. Placing them all under the umbrella term gives the impression
they are the same disorder and that the disorder is the gender itself.
We have gone full-circle and are back to the John Money school with a
few minor variations from it.

F. Eugenics research

Some
express concern with the fact that intersex is being used as a roadmap
to explain gender identity and sexual orientation and the DSD
researchers involved in the elaboration of this research are not
concerned about ethical protocols involving the possible misuse of the
research by a colleague of theirs, J. Michael Bailey, who has published
a legal argument for the justification for aborting homosexual fetuses
should the testing become available to determine homosexuality in
utero. Both Eric Vilain and Sherri Berenbaum are involved with J.
Michael Bailey. The eugenics application of the research is of much
concern to many of us and it is already happening to many intersexed
fetuses right now in places around the world. See: Eric Vilain, J Michael Bailey and DSD

G. Entrenches arbitrary gender assignments without consultation with the child

After
reading the publications of the DSD Consortium for parents and doctors,
our board members were very disappointed by the fact that once again
the DSD guidelines are primarily about GENDER and assuring parents and
doctors that the right gender can be chosen without consultation with
the child. We resoundingly reject this.

H. Sexism

As
intersex people are used to determine "normal sex-typed behaviors" and
their origins, more and more of the population will be affected by the
findings of this research which is being conducted by Vilain, Bailey
and others. I would suggest that the science behind this cannot be
separated from the surrounding sexist culture which finances it and
that the basic political and social assumptions which make these issues
"important" to the scientific community are rooted in the political
need to justify social norms for men and woman based on genetic
findings.

What follows are examples of the use of the term “développement sexuel” in French.

1.
Example of the common use of the term “développement sexuel” in French:
(l’homme termine son développement sexuel physique vers 21 ans et la
femme vers 18 ans Translation: Men finish their sexual development
around 21 and women around 18). Source: http://www.anael.org/francais/lamasturbation/